Validate a slice request by previewing model inputs, settings, and profile hashes before slicing, so you can confirm the print setup without generating G-code.
Validate a slice request and show inputs, settings, and hashes without slicing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| settings | No | ||
| machine_profile | No | ||
| process_profile | No | ||
| filament_profile | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the single most important behavioral trait: it validates and reports inputs, settings, and hashes without performing a slice, i.e. no side effects on the model. It is silent on auth needs, failure modes, or rate limits, but the critical safety profile is stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the differentiating clause last and zero redundant text. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the dry-run behavior is clear. But with five undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no explicit routing against run_slice, the definition leaves gaps the agent must guess around.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for all five parameters, so the description would need to compensate, and it does not. 'Inputs, settings, and hashes' refers to the preview output, not to arguments like model, settings, machine_profile, process_profile, or filament_profile, none of which are explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb (validate) and resource (slice request) plus the scope-limiting clause 'without slicing', which tells the agent this is a dry-run counterpart to the write path. It does not name run_slice directly, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Without slicing' implies this is the safe pre-flight check before run_slice, which is usable guidance. However, it never states an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rule or names the alternative, leaving the agent to infer the workflow ordering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.